Prosecutors: Zimmerman ignored warning to back off

Great. Let's let someone go for killing an unarmed kid for wearing a hoodie and talking on the phone. This guy was looking for trouble and got it. The poor kid was scared at being followed. I am sure I would have lashed out at someone following me in the dark too.

Well well, now with what we are hearing its looking pretty clear this zimmerman DIDNT stand his ground, rather looks like he was in full persuit! If this is true he is looking mighty guilty.

My guess is this "stand yr ground" idea is meant for when someones home/property is invaded & one fears for their life or their family members lives that they THEN can use lethal force, but if the bad guy runs away YOU AINT free to hunt'em down & shoot them.

This case is looking like the later WITHOUT any provocation what so ever! Hopefully the US will start learning from these too sad too often occurences!

Was there a struggle for the weapon?

This is a sad, sad point about America. Suppose someone were following you in Japan, and you didn't know why. The person - not wearing any uniform, not announcing himself in any official capacity - ordered you to stop. Suppose you did get in an altercation with that person, and a gun was produced - whether it was drawn or fell to the ground is immaterial. All you know is that you have been followed and accosted by an unknown person with a gun. What would you do?

Many posters on this site imply that Martin should simply have complied with this unknown person and spread-eagled himself on the ground. If an unknown Japanese made similar demands to you, would you react in that way? Would these posters demand that you act in that way?

Dog whistles.

"There had been some question as to whether Martin or Zimmerman was the one calling out."

And yet I'm sure Lieberman and some others will claim that she cannot be believed but Zimmerman can (when he claims it was him calling out). Bottom line is it's basically hearsay unless they can get more people to confirm the voice. If they can, that'll go a long way in either exonerating Zimmerman or putting him behind bars, where he belongs (regardless of who cried out), for murder.

Regardless, it is FACT that he ignored the dispatcher and followed Martin, and that is why one man is dead and one in hiding (save for the court appearance). Had he done what the dispatcher said, this situation would not exist. He is therefore completely to blame for Martin's death. I don't know about second-degree murder, but at the very least he deserves a charge of manslaughter.

The choice of 2nd degree murder is interesting; most had expected manslaughter. On the other hand, 2nd degree murder is a common charge used against repeat DUI offenders who eventually cause a fatal accident - the idea being that they should by this point be fully aware the danger their choices entail.

Most are aware that Zimmerman was arrested in July 2005 for resisting an officer with violence, which is a felony charge that could have cost him prison time. Instead, he was spared with a pre-trial diversion program, which includes classes on anger management. Most are not aware that he was also arrested a month later for domestic violence and resisting an officer without violence.

Zimmerman clearly has problems with anger issues and violence; he has a history of arrest and a history of enforced counseling regarding these problems. This makes the above DUI precedent pertinent.

Aside from this, that the State of Florida found it fitting to issue a gun permit to the likes of Zimmerman is not surprising - but it is still alarming. This is no doubt due to the fact that he was never convicted, and that is likely due to the fact that his father is a former Orange County magistrate judge.

Note that the official charges list the word that Zimmerman spoke that night as "punks," and not "cold" the way some have asserted. ("Punks" is what Zimmerman's former legal team claims that he said.)

So there isn't going to be any evidence bombshells that are hidden that will bolster the case at trial

Wishful thinking, pure and simple.

I think Ms. Corey knows she doesn't have case

I think the delusion of some who think they can read minds is pretty amazing. Corey is a highly respected prosecutor who has won over 90% of the cases she's brought to trial. You don't get that kind of win record by bringing up cases you don't think you can win.

The key evidence in the case is the 60 seconds leading up to the gunshot, with Trayvon screaming for about 40 seconds of that final minute -- and the positions of the two men when the shot was fired. As the person who profiled, improperly pursued, and accosted Trayvon, Zimmerman's claims to self-defense are specious at best.

I believe the evidence will reveal something different about the gunshot than what Zimmerman has tried to portray -- along similar lines with his portrayal of his head being pounded into concrete until he nearly lost consciousness. (When, barely 30 minutes later, he's seen ambling nonchalantly and unassisted through the halls of the police station with nary a scratch or false step.)

If Florida law missteps, there will be a federal case pending against Zimmerman for depriving Trayvon Martin of his civil rights. Despite local laws which might make it appear perfectly OK for private citizens to deliver a death penalty to other citizens who they have falsely profiled and accosted before claiming "self-defense," Martin was an American entitled basic protection from such actions taken by disturbed individuals like Zimmerman.

I'm not sure that Zimmerman can dodge this one. He pursued when he was told not to. If anybody was "standing his ground" it was Trayvon Martin. A person should be able to walk through his neighborhood home without being followed and accosted by some unknown guy. Of course this will take months to go through the trial. I wonder what the outcome will be.

Florida doesn't consider guns to be dangerous weapons?

I'm pretty sure they do. I don't agree with the Florida law, but you have to read that sentence as is "or upon a sudden combat without any dangerous weapon being used" and not break it up into bits and pieces.

Basically as I read the law , a person does not need to be attacked by somebody wielding a "dangerous weapon" in order to be legally justified in defending themselves even if by doing so they take the life of their attacker. In other words, somebody could come up and start jumping in your face using nothing more than their fists, and you could shoot them and legally claim you were just acting in self-defense.

Not saying it's right. In fact , I disagree with it. But, it is the law in the State of Florida and it will be used to its fullest by Zimmerman's defense team to claim that he was acting in self-defense.

On the other hand, the prosecution is probably going to try and prove that Zimmerman might have indeed at some point been defending himself but that he failed to use usual ordinary caution and actually intended to inflict bodily harm since he ignored the advice of the police dispatcher and continued pursuing Trayvon Martin instead of waiting for the police to arrive.

I am sometimes ashamed to be American in the 21st century. My country markets itself as a bastion of morality, of being the world's shining societal example, and of being a free and equal nation. But in fact, beneath the propaganda there remains brutal and shameful realities such as racism, this insane passion for firearms and laws that rationalize the killing of others (privately or by state decree).

Is it any wonder that the world now rejects our moralizing and propaganda? Why would anyone want to follow or respect a place where a young man can be gunned down for being a minority, for wearing a common hoodie, for talking on a cell phone, for defending himself from an unknown assailant.

America is too driven by fear and should be better off if we become driven by common sense and compassion.

"(upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat) "

This is terribly vague. Define provocation.

Person A to Person B - "You are in my spot!" followed by a hearty shove. Person B to Person A - Bang! Gun shot. Person B to Police - "He provoked me!"

Or in this case. Zimmerman was "provoked" by his misconception that this young man posed a danger. He used that "provocation" to eventually confront and probably assault this young man. And then used the "provocation" of the young man defending himself to use lethal force.

The problem in Florida is that this is a boneheaded law that should be removed from the books. What year does the government of Florida think it is now? 1870? No one should be allowed around the city with a gun other than a proper law enforcement officer. And anyone shooting someone should carry the burden of proof, not the victim.

I don't agree with Mr. Zimmerman's claims of self defense. But, his defense team is going do all they can to try and show that he was legally with in his right to defend himself according to Florida law. As impossible as it may seem, the entire case could possibly come down to how the comma in "or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used " is interpreted by the court.

The problem in Florida is that this is a boneheaded law that should be removed from the books.

Right. That's what should be the focus, and that is apparently what Martin's parents want made the focus.

As it stands, rather than Zimmerman having to prove he was threatened, Martin must prove that he did not threaten. A dead man forced to prove a negative is a hurdle too high.

Note you asserted he said something entirely different and beat that drum as loudly as you could, you were so sure of it ,that it you actually said it "seals the deal."

And I still claim that the word is not "punks" but actually the epithet. But since Zimmerman's legal team themselves claimed that "punks" was the word, there is not much more here -- since either punks or the epithet reveals the state of Zimmerman's mind regarding hostility towards his target. The word "cold" would be interpreted by an apologist as a means of excusing Zimmerman.

It is Zimmerman's hostility towards his target -- his prejudice at removing from an American citizen the presumption of innocence -- that "seals the deal." Zimmerman knew he was doing wrong the minute he got out of his vehicle with a loaded weapon to pursue Trayvon. To Zimmerman, Martin was judged as an xxxhole and a "punk" who was threatening to "get away." (Actually he was just going home.)

To claim "self-defense" after killing an innocent person you've accosted is really quite amazing.

The second seal was placed on the deal when Zimmerman recounted the details of his fight -- replete with his head being pounded repeatedly against concrete until he nearly lost consciousness. That seal was placed when SFD checked him out and saw no signs of internal trauma whatsoever, and firmly planted as the shooter ambled completely casually and sure-footed through the police station with nary a scratch on him.

" If anybody was "standing his ground" it was Trayvon Martin."

That's the rub......

It seems to me some of the killers defenders are worried about their right to shoot unarmed black people, yet they are the ones screaming about racism. Go figure.

Yabits: I believe that to the extent that people feel it was perfectly justified, or who throw up their hands and say "Oh, we'll never know, so let's not discuss it," should be very, very worried.

There is a legal process that does not include reading message boards and getting opinions from people who are getting their information mostly from the media. What I don't want to see is people inflaming the situation to the point where some kind of outburst is inevitable regardless of the outcome. That's why I say Zimmerman could very well have murdered Martin, but there might not be enough evidence to get a conviction. If that does in fact turn out to be the outcome, will you be able to handle it rationally? Will others? That's what worries me.

I am amazed this debate is still going on. A 17 year old, who was doing absolutely nothing illegal at all, was followed by a man with a gun, who was not a police officer and was shot and killed. Why? What justification does a regular civilian have for following someone outside in the stree with a gun? Not on the man's property, mind you, but in the street. Sorry, I do not get it. This stand your ground law is going to keep a lot of people from wanting to visit the state of Florida. When anyone can take the law into their own hands and act like a police officer, that is a place I sure don't want to visit.

782.03 Excusable homicide.--Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

Florida doesn't consider guns to be dangerous weapons?

The very act of being a young black male walking on a street may be judged "sufficient provocation." Thank you for clarifying that, RR.

TorafusuTorasanAPR. 13, 2012 - 12:21PM JST As tkoind2 helpfully points out, Martin was talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend at the time of the assault. That's why there is a recording of their voices during the assault. Cell phones are not considered dangerous weapons under any state law. RomeoR's pipe dream of "excusable homicide" is going to get a rude awakening when Zimmerman gets sentenced to decades in prison for his actions, just like another second amendment activist with a fake self defense story, Jesus Gonzalez from Wisconsin.

RomeoR seems to have just provided a text of the law. The Florida law is the one defining "excusable homicide" not RomeoR.

I agree that a cell phone is not a dangerous weapon. But, the law (at least the version provided by RomeoR) seems to imply that you do not need to be attacked by somebody using a dangerous weapon for you to be able to legally defend yourself. At least, that's the way I read it, so whether a cell phone is a "dangerous weapon" seems to be irrelevant.

"As for Martin attacking Zimmerman, every one appears to only look at Martins age (yes too Young to die) but forget that he was at least as large as Zimmerman (6 foot 3 inches, 190 cm), if some one my size or larger attacked me I too would be very afraid for my life."

It's quit simple for forensics to prove or disprove. Martin's hands would have been a mess if he was throwing the beating Zimmerman alleges he received. I presume most of us blokes have brawled at sometimes and I always remember hands being in abject bloody misery days after.

Florida's Stand Your Ground law enables individuals who feel threatened in a public place to "meet force with force," rather than back away.

In what way did zimmerman feel threatened? zimmerman accosted the boy with the intent of using force thogh there was no force initially used by the boy. Only zimmerman's words for it. How can someone be walking/running away from you and you feel threatened? Why did you feel threatened and pursued the threat? How far away was the boy from where his dad was when he was killed? Did it appear he was trying to get there and was stopped halfway/three quarterway by zimmerman? If the boy turned back to attack him he should be further than nearer to where his dad was. Dead man can't talk. Someone has to get the evidence and talk for him. Let justice be served.

" doesnt quite convince me"

A picture of Zimmerman urinating on the body wouldn't convince you. Your attempts to paint the victim as a violent, drug dealing homie from the LBC are all on file.

"Why would you imagine the vigilante Zimmerman capable of such things? Why do you hate Hispanics so much ?"

Are you off your meds or something?

stand your ground laws

Create a conflict, stand your ground and get (someone) acquitted for murder. That could never have been the meaning of (those who wrote) these laws. A modern state maintaining laws of the wild west, laws that read like quotations from the old testament creates confusion, unfairness and unnecessary suffering.

And this is not in any context of a defense for him but after you've been pretty much villified as the most evil racist man in America

LOL.. Zimmerman is nowhere near the most racist man, but he's certainly drawn the racists and haters out from both sides like moths to a candle.

If the parents of Trayvon had not asked for members of the community to get involved in seeking justice for their murdered son, the case would likely have been excused by the Florida justice system and swept under the rug. And that evil outcome would have been perfectly acceptable to white racists everywhere, no doubt.

You do actually understand that this a sworn affidavit I would hope.

And you keep trying to deflect the main point away from what either of the two words -- "punk" or the epithet -- reveals about the state of Zimmerman's mind towards his target that night. You did that earlier when insisting -- despite all of the physical evidence and the context of his call -- that what Zimmerman was cursing was the weather. In fact, you've done that nearly every step of the way along this case.

Ultimately, much rests on Zimmerman's credibility. Some people obviously buy his story that he could have his head repeatedly pounded against concrete so severely that he nearly lost consciousness and feared for his life, and show nary a scratch or bandaging less than 40 minutes later. The moment medical records, and the ballistics and other evidence casts doubt on Zimmerman's version, his claim of self-defense goes out the window.

Trayvon was actually murdered twice that night. Zimmerman did it when he stalked, accosted, and finally shot him. And a good many of Zimmerman's defenders and apologists have done it by trying to present Trayvon Martin to the world as a person who deserved what happened to him that night. They do this by trying to excuse Zimmerman's actions, his state of mind, and the obvious discrepancies in a story he had to come up with to cover what he had done. They have done it by calling those genuinely seeking justice for the victim in this case as a "lynch mob." and in numerous other ways.

"Lynch mob" is just lazy generalization because you haven't named any examples of those groups or individuals that are problematic. Just a bunch of generic stock villians like "the media." Watch how easy it is to list a name and an example of lynch mob rhetoric:

What do you call Rick Santorum's main financial backer Foster Friess saying on Fox that Obama should have a bulletproof teleprompter? Wait, let me dig into my bag o' names...got two... "boy scout" or "kooky kloseted klansman." Which one would you apply to Friess?

cleo - So dangerous that a teenage lad cannot walk to the shop for sweets and a drink and walk back home without getting shot. If Florida had had California's gun laws isn't it likely that Zimmerman would not have been carrying a gun and Martin would still be alive?

Are you suggesting that if things were different, then things would be different?

Zimmerman is saying that Martin approached him from behind, he and Martin exchanged words, Martin punched him, knocked him down, and continued attacking him. That is illegal even in California.

It's now up to the SA's office to actually prove their pre-liminary charges. It will be the duty of the defense attorney to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

California laws have no bearing on Florida criminal cases.

"Even if he avoids incarceration, he will always be that guy who shot an unarmed teenager."

And claiming he was getting a sound thrashing from the boy, despite aggresively intitating the confrontation.

Guns and knives are for cowards.

Madverts,

I just want to clarify something that even I haven't really made clear and apologies. I do believe that Zimmerman should have not be allowed to not have to be arrested and face a further legal proceeding after he shot Trayvon Martin. If it was truly legal self defense the validity should be determined through a court hearing in front of Judge to determine if charges should be filed after the claim and initial investigation. The law in Florida as written is flawed to be able to allow a person to not face at least a court hearing to determine if deadly force was in fact justified for self defense after the initial investigation where self-defense is the claim. I understand and have the same very frustration that through no fault of Zimmerman's he was able to not be arrested at a minimum when this happened because the law allowed it to be that way. That needs to be changed.

If anything good comes out of this it will be to change this law to ensure that justice is better served for all the families involved.

In a court room, it's customary to provide evidence that refutes these statements.

Like photos of the blood-stained concrete that Zimmerman's head was being bashed into? Or lack of the same?

First point . Trayvon's body was found closer to his house than to Zimmerman's car. If as Zimmerman first stated, that he was almost back to his car when attacked. (a place 20 yards away from being able to even see the car). Then how far did he follow Trayvon? A second point, it was 2-3 minutes from the time Zimmerman lost sight and fired the shot. If you look at a map of the complex you would see that it would be hard to be out of sight for more than about 10-15 seconds. Third point, Zimmerman was not on patrol. He was also returning from the store. He lived in the opposite back corner. But still was carrying a gun and was not an official or registered Community Watch officer or captain to begin with. Remember, he was self appointed. Forth point, According to the State of Virginia, Zimmerman's father was the Judicial Magistrate of the Supreme Court there from 2000 to 2006 (7 years). A very powerful position, don't know how many judicial positions it took to get there.

Are these all indisputable facts, hard to say the way this case has gone. They are the closest I have seen so far though.

To say this is a tragedy is an understatement. Most of the comments here in the public spectre are less than helpful. Emotions are running high on all sides;there are more than two, you know. As this occurred in the State of Florida, the only relevant laws are those of the State of Florida, not UK, Texas, nor anywhere else. Like them or not, those are the current laws. Another inconvenient truth is that neither party were saints. One human is now dead, and the facts must now be sorted out. The case can not be tried in the court of public opinion.

I'm still wondering if the evidence is going to show he was shot in the back. I've read nothing about the actual fatal wound Zimmerman inflicted to date.

Madverts,

He was shot in the chest according to the affidavit filed. I'm more interested if there were powder burns noted during the autopsy. All the eye witnesses saw them wrestling before the shot was fired. Powder burns would indicate they were still tangled together in the fight before the gun went off.

Yabits,

I suppose there is a much better name for the type of person who feels that the rather simple rules of being a Neighborhood Watch didn't apply to him, even when reminded of those rules as he's violating them -- but I doubt if you could come with it.

Stupidity is the word I come up with. Sorry if I didn't come up with "Mad Dog Racist Pig Murderer" to suit your take on him.

Sail,

"Powder burns would indicate they were still tangled together in the fight before the gun went off."

Ok I see your angle. I'm still not sure how any jury are going to accept that he had to shoot the kid after stalking him. He created the situation full stop and that's hardly standing your ground if we're honest.

He's clearly an idiot if you want my opinion. An idiot with a gun. And that ends up with situations like this.

But I agree he may yet walk. And if that's the case there'll be hell on I imagine.

Madverts,

He's clearly an idiot if you want my opinion. An idiot with a gun. And that ends up with situations like this.

I going to tell what really and truly stinks about this whole mess in my opinion. Trayvon is on his cell phone with his girlfriend and tells her the situation he's in at the same time Zimmerman is on his cell phone to 911. She advises him to run which he does and Zimmerman reports at about exactly the same time after she told Trayvon that he is now running on his 911 call. She gave him good advice, but dammit if she would have said Trayvon hang up and call 911 and he would have done that instead...............They both had the same "weapon" between the two of them to use that night one to report a suspicion and one to use to defend against a unfounded report it that didn't have to involve the use of violence, egos, and macho B.S to start throwing punches and a gunshot to take a life and it was the damn cellphone.

I truly hope Justice is going to be able to served in this case for both families but I highly doubt it now. Media made a total mess of this from day one with the shoddy biased reporting and I'm afraid it's going to reap what it sowed no matter what the final outcome of this is going to be.

The media has spun this situation terribly.

No. It's because they have not spun the horrible and justifiable outrage of the great injustice of the events following the shooting of Trayvon Martin that has some people reacting as you do.

I never realized that "sainthood" was required when heading home from the store and expecting to arrive safely.

"I never realized that "sainthood" was required when heading home from the store and expecting to arrive safely."

I don't get that comment either. Both extremes have done their best to give both individuals involved here a chequered past neither of them have.

Zimmerman has had an unimpressive career selling insurance with wannabe cop aspirations like many, and Martin was a 17 year old that listened to rap and smoked weed, like just about every other kid in the western world.

This was willful harrassment if the police told this guy to back off and he didn't. Bury him.

TorafusuTorasanAPR. 13, 2012 - 01:48PM JST What's the big difference with or without the parentheses? How will a defense attorney get past that glaring "without any dangerous weapon being used" (i.e. Cleo's brick wall) proviso of the law? Yes, I know--try to bring up Martin's checkered past etc. But then try to get past Zimmerman's previous conviction for assault...get this... on a police officer.

It make a big difference. Laws tend to be worded very carefully for very specific reasons.

I agree that this law is not very good. But, Florida is not the only state that has a law like this on the books. Until there is some kind of national consensus on this matter leading to a national law, states are going to go there own way.

it appears that you just added them (parentheses)

Yes, I added parentheses and bold type to show what I think the meaning is. That law is extremely badly written and lays itself open to a variety of interpretations depending where the reader places the breaks. Without breaks it's just garble. It seems to me that without any dangerous weapon being used goes naturally with and not done in a cruel or unusual manner which in turn obviously refers to the homicide, not the provocation or combat. If the bit about without a dangerous weapon does go with the provocation or combat and not the homicide, then and not done in a cruel or unusual manner is left dangling useless and meaningless on the end of the sentence. If the meaning is supposed to be that provocation or combat justifies homicide regardless of whether of not the person doing the provocation or aggro is using a weapon, then it should say so.

Split knuckles are not defensive wounds.

If someone made a roller coaster and called it "The Trayvon Martin Case" I would be scared to get on it for all the twists, turns and loops it must have!

So glad I have stayed on the fence through this whole deal except to say its a clear case of manslaughter. Everyone else has eaten crow only to spit it back out again at the next days news report.

Thanks Sail,

"It is the only evidence they have to try and make the charge stand they can't change it or modify it from this point. So there isn't going to be any evidence bombshells that are hidden that will bolster the case at trial, such as Mr. Martin's autopsy shows he had no bruising on his knuckles to bolster their position. This is it this is all they have."

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying - is there officialy no bruising on the knuckles?

What is "all they have"?

"This is it. It is no wonder on some legal pro's are saying this is going to get tossed out of court and he won't be charged with 2nd degree murder."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he already been charged with 2nd degree murder?

I think Ms. Corey knows she doesn't have case and went with the highest charge that she could try and stretch it to for cover when the Judge tosses it out. She can claim she tried but the Judge over-ruled her. She can then re-file another affidavit on manslaughter, though I doubt even that may not hold up if this is all they have.

"but if it is true according to some friends that he spoke to afterwards, he was pretty broken up over his killing another human being. His conscience may have bother him so much that he maybe could be talked into a plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser charge such as manslaughter saving everybody including herself the fiasco and media circus that it will become."

Hold on, let me dust off the violin. So did Zimmerman find a conscience before he went on patrol with a loaded gun, or just after he set up a website incredulously asking for donations?

"I think she's banking or hoping on Zimmerman wanting this to be over in his life just as bad as everyone else and this was more like applying the most pressure she legally could on him to get try and get him there without a trial and get this resolved to almost everybody's satisfaction, She's gambling in my opinion."

She'd be crazy to gamble on a case like this. National, ney international furore aside, it would be the end of her career dropping such a bollock in my opinion, let alone the potential for this to end like the Rodney King acquittals back in 1991 followed by unprecedented rioting.

There must be some evidence we haven't seen yet to support the 2nd degree charge.

Sail, interesting points - and American law is one difficult thing to understand, varying as it does by state. A few things I have gleaned:

Evidence: "Under Florida legal rules, prosecutors have 15 days after an arrest to give the defense what evidence they have against Zimmerman." That does not mean that they have to share it with the public; this means we have no idea what evidence they will present.

Tossing the case: this is more difficult due to Florida's arguably insane law.

Under the Stand Your Ground law, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, a judge can grant Zimmerman immunity from prosecution in this type of hearing. Here is where Zimmerman is expected to tell why he feared for his life when he scuffled with Martin. Those hearings are like a “mini trials,” King said, in which experts on Zimmerman’s emotional state will also likely be called to testify, as well as any other witnesses in the case. If a judge decides there is enough evidence to show Zimmerman did act in self-defense based on the preponderance of the evidence, the judge can rule that Zimmerman can’t be prosecuted, essentially dismissing the criminal case.

So this is basically pass/go: should the suit continue or be tossed. It does not appear that the judge must incorporate the charges into his opinion, so it appears not to matter whether Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter; my guess is Zimmerman will not be able to provide sufficient evidence that his conduct was justified, so the judge will allow the case to proceed.

Prosecution will be difficult. One site noted,

Florida law remains unique. Unlike Texas law, for example, which does not permit deadly force to be used by someone who provokes hostile action, Florida allows someone to use deadly force even if his conduct somehow created the very threat to which his lethal force responds. So if, as Zimmerman claims, Martin walked toward him and asked why he was following him, and Zimmerman reasonably felt threatened by that question, Florida gives him permission to shoot, even though his very conduct provoked Martin’s question.

Fundamentally, this comes down to the law itself: how it should be interpreted and whether it should even exist. This should be high-profile, as it will be better to determine these legal issues before more are killed (or to allow people time to prepare for further carnage, as the case may be).

Some have said that the 2nd degree murder charge was deliberately harsh to allow the jury to compromise on manslaughter, but as Yabits has mentioned, that is not the way Corey operates. I stand by my above comments.

Regarding how fine a human Zimmerman is and how now so distraught, has he contacted Martin's family at least to convey his sympathy? Not that I know of, though he did apparently contact Sean Hannity. His Website plea for funding also did not indicate the slightest bit of remorse.

Another hypothetical: let's say that, during some struggle, the gun was produced and Martin gained control of it. Would he not then be within his rights according to Florida law - in fact, even more so, considering that he had been hitherto unarmed - to shoot Zimmerman dead, seeing as he felt that his life was threatened?

It doesn't matter what the lynch mobs claim either.

Those who lean towards supporting Zimmerman are patriotic Americans. You can see that by the patriotic emblems on his fundraising site. Those who lean towards supporting Martin are lynch mobs. Kinda ironic how the right has misappropriated that word. In the good ol' days, lynch mobs lynched.

@Laguna on "lynch mobs"--yeah, what's up with the few on here trying to revive a term that doesn't fit the situation. Mostly harmless flash mobs and cash mobs are what you have these days. Lynch Mob to most people alive today was a rap-metal band fronted by Ice-T, whose influence is visible in the increasingly hysterical faux-ebonics ramblings that are starting to dominate this thread. Lets prove who can make up a more ridiculous approximation of street slang, because that will help prove a point about Martin's guilt or something.

Nah, Torafusu, it's worse than that. To "lynch" means to create a mob of vigilantes who will take law into their own hands, either because they cannot wait for the process or because they don't trust the outcome. Granted, there were a few cases in American history where whites where lynched for particularly heinous crimes. but the vast majority was against blacks, and for the latter reason: Innocent was unacceptable.

That the neo-right turns this phrase against Martin in this case is intolerable for two reasons: it throws an historical injustice in their face; and it turns upside down a case of a wrong committed against a black as a wrong committed by a black.

Some might use it accidentally; some might simply be copying others - but many know full well what they are doing when they use this word in this context.

I did nothing of the sort. I tried to verify if his saying cold was plausible after CNN reported that he didn't use a racial slur after all...

The report from CNN coincided with Zimmerman's own defense team claiming the word was "punks." The choice of punks (or the epithet) clearly demonstrated Zimmerman profiling and prejudging Martin into a category he most certainly did not belong. It revealed a hostile state of mind in a way that the word "cold" could not. (And therefore seals the deal in a way you -- or anyone else protesting that the word was "cold" -- can never bring themselves to admit. Which is why you felt the need to deflect away from that very basic point of logic.)

Your complete misreading or denial of Zimmerman's mind is interesting in light of what you've written about what you think is going on in the mind of Corey. This despite all of the evidence, history and logic to the contrary.

Sailwind,

You must have missed my question.

Did Zimmerman find a conscience before he went on patrol with a loaded gun, or just after he set up a website incredulously asking for donations?

"I'm not sure of the relevance of his setting a website to ask for donations is other than it shows that he needs money to help pay for his legal defense."

Frankly I think it shows a total lack of remorse for his killing. It is surly unprecedented in a US murder case, no?

Martin's dead because Zimmerman shot him after going out of his way force this confrontation. This much, at least, is fact.

Zimmerman probably did think he was a crusader for good that night, I don't doubt that. He just got his case of racial profiling horribly wrong.. Unless the jury are Klansman or arrestpaul clones, this fact is obvious.

How many of these incidents does the US need to realize an over-zealous watchman, or anyone else for that matter should not be authorized to carry a concealed handgun?

arrestpaul,

"Zimmerman is saying that Martin approached him from behind, he and Martin exchanged words,"

He's free to say what he likes, there are no witnesses and the boy can hardly discredit the killers version, can he?

I've no doubt that you believe it though. I hope you've fired off a donation.

Frankly I think it shows a total lack of remorse for his killing. It is surly unprecedented in a US murder case, no?

Short answer, no. Legal defense funds are set up all the time even O.J Simpson had to set one up.

Martin's dead because Zimmerman shot him after going out of his way force this confrontation. This much, at least, is fact.

No offense but would you actually mind if we had a trial to determine if that really is a fact? Seems to be a pretty contested point in all of this as to how far he forced the confrontation. Bad judgement to get out of his car everybody agrees on from that point on nobody really knows what the real facts myself and you included.

He just got his case of racial profiling horribly wrong.

I do you hope you understand that Zimmerman as the neighborhood watch included looking out for all his neighbors regardless of what skin tone. That Martin's father lived in that very neighborhood. That Zimmerman not knowing that Trayvon Martin was not a stranger in his neighborhood when he "racially profiled him" was for all practical purposes also looking out for Martin's fathers house in what he viewed as preventing a possible crime from happening.

Good post Sailwind. Agree totally.

It is sad that this boy died needlessly, but I do feel empathy for people who live in crime infested areas that wish to be pro-active in making a positive difference.

Bottom line is that none of those wishing to do such community service, should be carrying firearms period.

Sorry, missed the earlier post.

"No offense but would you actually mind if we had a trial to determine if that really is a fact? Seems to be a pretty contested point in all of this as to how far he forced the confrontation. "

He followed the boy, against the advice of police dispatch and was carrying a concealed weapon. Nobody asked him to do that. He forced the confrontation, there is no denying that. It is a documented fact.

We will probably never know what happened between them - the only thing I'm waiting to see is physical evidence of the victims hands showing the kind of attack Zimmerman is claiming for his right to self defence. I doubt it is there to be honest, but even if he did wallop the man, he himself was using the stand your ground law was he not?

I'm still wondering if the evidence is going to show he was shot in the back. I've read nothing about the actual fatal wound Zimmerman inflicted to date.

And here was the "deal" foisted on Mr. Martin and his fellow neighbors by George Zimmerman:

Dang Yabits, he's now the dictator of his neighborhood?????

Yabits. No one knows what really happened. You can piece together whatever circumstantial evidence you'd like, but it doesn't replace the fact that you will probably never know what really happened. What's you're trying to do is demand an outcome, and what worries me is that there are others like you who are not prepared if the verdict does not agree with what you've convinced yourself to be absolutely true.

Zimmerman may very well have killed Martin but there might not be enough evidence to convict. Zimmerman was an idiot for doing what he was doing and the police that arrested him were obviously idiots as well. What we're seeing amounts to a "do over" by the police. But from here on out the case should be treated like any other without pressure from the public, especially a public who is being fed information by the media who thrives off of the conflict.

No one knows what really happened.

I believe Zimmerman knows the critical details of what happened, unless he's not of sound mind -- which is possible, but yet to be established. Assuming that Zimmerman isn't a mental case, there is nothing that would prevent him from knowing exactly who started the altercation and how it started.

What's you're trying to do is demand an outcome...

So far off base it isn't even funny. What decent people "demand" is a process that enables the evidence that has already been made available to make some sense. (Like when a person with nary a scratch claims to have had his head beaten repeatedly on concrete: What makes sense from that is a purposeful and self-serving exaggeration designed to hide the real truth. A truth we may not know in full detail, but which is incriminating nonetheless.)

and what worries me is that there are others like you who are not prepared if the verdict does not agree with what you've convinced yourself to be absolutely true

That's the equivocator's way to rationalize out of a serious dilemma. I mean a person at this stage who has to say "Zimmerman may very well have killed Martin" is likely not apt to recognize "truth" of any degree. The haunting truth of this event is that there is no justifiable reason that Trayvon Martin had to lose his life that night by someone pretending to be a "law enforcer." I believe that to the extent that people feel it was perfectly justified, or who throw up their hands and say "Oh, we'll never know, so let's not discuss it," should be very, very worried.

It is already extremely worrisome that so much public pressure had to be exerted for this tragic case to be given the attention it warranted. It is amazing that a person can walk free for over 40 days before being brought on charges of second-degree murder, absent any stunning revelations that might not have been available to investigators within 48 hours of the crime. That definitely sends a message to the community that ought to worry a lot of people.

I am not the one here second-guessing the charges or trying to read the mind of the special prosecutor in this case, so you'll need to bark up another tree. Based on her record, I have to accept that she's got the necessary evidence to win her case.

"You're saying that there are no witnesses but that Zimmerman must be guilty?"

I said nothing of the sort, please stop misquoting people it only makes your argument weaker. I've said from day one that Zimmerman worked hard at creating this situation where an unarmed boy was shot to death...

"You do consider Zimmerman a "witness"?"

No he's a suspect in a murder trial. Really, I shouldn't be explaining such simple facts for you. Anything Zimmerman says is going to be self-serving.

Superlib is on the money. But those like yourself on the other extreme should also prepare yourself for the opposite, that is to say for the killer to be jailed.

From the evidence we've seen I think manslaughter would have been a more reasonable charge, but I'm willing to wait and see the outcome.

Either way, I think it's ironic that you fail to grasp the argument that Martin himself was potentially applying the SYG law, being stalked by a self-appointed man on a mission determined of his suspicions simply seeing a black teenager in a hooded top, but then, some people can never be brought to reason.

Madverts, I'm NOT adding fuel ("as usual" you say ), quite the opposite. You're rather off in your presumption. The media has spun this situation terribly. My previous post is a call to rationality, away from the hype, partiality, and race-baiting.

"but dammit if she would have said Trayvon hang up and call 911 and he would have done that instead............."

Not enough time methinks. The shooter was on a mission to catch his man, remember - disregarding police dispatch advice that told him his actions weren't necessary.

"Media made a total mess of this from day one with the shoddy biased reporting and I'm afraid it's going to reap what it sowed no matter what the final outcome of this is going to be."

The media are the one's who stopped this being swept under the carpet so in one sense they have done their job, but I agree they have ratcheted the saga up to screaming point and some people have acted pretty stupidly.

But even that can't be totally pinned on the media - there is an underlying race problem simmering at the surface in the US, despite a part African-American finally holding the highest office of the land.

Sailwind, thank you for a well-stated post, with rational thinking.

Stupidity is the word I come up with. Sorry if I didn't come up with "Mad Dog Racist Pig Murderer" to suit your take on him.

Stupidity is part of it. But note that you came with "dictator" after a plausible portrayal of the details of Zimmerman's "service" to his community. It seems to me that the conservatives in the state of Florida and elsewhere feel it's perfectly OK to allow very stupid people with anger issues to carry weapons that enable them to foolishly put themselves in situations where their cowardice gets the best of them, and they are able to mete out the death penalty in response.

I mean that's the whole thrust of the "Stand your Ground" rule as it applies to Zimmerman.

Media made a total mess of this from day one...

The media was not on this story from Day One. It was weeks before they started to report it -- long after the chief of police of Sanford told the parents of Trayvon Martin that they were just going to have to accept that their son was murdered while he walked back home from the store. (They weren't aware until later that the lead investigator wanted to bring charges against Zimmerman but was blocked from doing so by a state's attorney.)

It was the criminal justice system of Florida that botched this from Day One. And the root cause is the conservative sponsoring and creation of "stand your ground" rules which are nothing less than insane.

She advises him to run which he does...

She advises him to run and she reports that his reply was he is not going to run, but to pick up the pace of his walking. She heard the confrontation with the pursuing Zimmerman soon after, preceded by Zimmerman and Martin exchanging words. (This is completely at odds with Zimmerman's version that has him returning to his vehicle and being ambushed by Martin. Anyone looking at the layout of the residences and the open spaces between them would find it hard to believe that someone could sneak up on a person, or that Zimmerman would have totally given up his guard like that.)

What I don't want to see is people inflaming the situation to the point where some kind of outburst is inevitable regardless of the outcome.

There are actually multiple trials going on here. One is the legal proceedings against George Zimmerman. Another is the investigation of how a lead investigator's findings of probable cause -- the guy closest to the facts of the case -- were overturned by a chief of police acting with a state's attorney. And yet another is the examination of the kinds of laws that would enable a George Zimmerman to kill an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong and walk away scot free.

A society that prepares that kind of "table" for victimizing innocent people should expect an outburst unless it takes steps to correct the situation. Those actions should have serious consequences, as they already have had for Trayvon Martin and his family and friends. To their great credit, the vast majority of people involved have worked tirelessly towards a peaceful resolution to this matter.

But it will take a very very long time to convince a lot of people that a lead investigator would have been overruled had the victim been an unarmed white kid returning home with no history of violence or problems with the law.

When anyone can take the law into their own hands and act like a police officer, that is a place I sure don't want to visit.

That is a real gem of a post. And it's not just Florida; many other states are following suit with these insane "stand your ground" laws that allow ordinary citizens to mete out de facto executions on the streets with no due process.

I agree with those observers who claim that the United States is undergoing a type of internal civil war with thousands of its citizens dying through violence and millions more taken as prisoners. This is the "fruit" that our system is now bearing.

...if you allow, in Law, the indiscriminate carrying of small, lethal firearms; well these problems are likely to arise are they not?

To suggest (or imply), as someone has above, that the majority-vote of the Florida electorate is somehow a test of a Law's worth, is as laughable as it is absurd.

This is the conservative penchant for lying to themselves at work here. Those of us who believed that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon Martin from the beginning did not need NBC's deceptive edit to support our viewpoint. But we knew that conservatives would jump all over it and try to make far more out of it than is actually there.

Everybody knows he targeted Martin, he called 911 on him and he didn't call them because he thought Martin needed a lift to go to Church. You need NBC's deceptive edit to bolster your claim that Zimmerman's a racist and could care less that they have to lie to do it to support your politics and viewpoint.

It appears that conservatives can screw up royally -- starting with insane SYG laws and arming people who have no business carrying weapons, and letting them walk free after killing unarmed people doing nothing wrong -- but then expect anyone reporting on the consequences of their screw-ups to hold to the standards of a saint.

I expect next you'll start blaming Rush Limbaugh for causing Trayvon Martin's death.

suspicious to the nieghborhood watch after your neighborhood had a rash of burglaries

A rash of burglaries by blacks?

It's obvious that it was Martin behavior that caught his suspicion and not his ethnic background.

The obvious behavior came from someone wearing sweats and hoodie -- something any human being would notice before other "behaviors." Better to call 911 right away with the suspicion that it was a black.

the guy was looking at houses

How does one "look at houses" from the street in a way that makes an observer like Zimmerman suspicious? A rash of burglaries by blacks and a guy wearing clothing that suggests blackness. Call 911 before the __hole gets away.

I think if we end up having race riots like in L.A after the Rodney King verdict that this will more than trump this with the help of what NBC did.

Like the person who feared Trayvon Martin would break into a house by looking at it unless he personally stopped him, let your worst impulses and imagination about African-Americans run wild. There are self-fulfilling prophesies and some people will fulfill your lowest expectations of them.

I expect next you'll start blaming Rush Limbaugh for causing Trayvon Martin's death.

what you are saying he is not to blame? :p

I am wondering, i the guy doesn't get any jailtime, that there will be rioting like what happened after Rodney Kings case?

In regards to the Florida law that you can use deadly force to defend your self, If Trayvon felt threatened by the man following him, wouldn't that also allow him to use force when he supposedly attacked Zimmerman? The bottom line is that the Zimmerman disregarded the polices orders, and if he hadn't this whole situation would not have happened. Trayvon is no longer able to tell his story and things just don't seem to add up 100% with Zimmerman's defense.

Yabits: There's a slight difference between "aid workers" going 10,000 miles out of their way to inject themselves into a war zone and a kid walking home from the store through his gated community. A difference lost on some people obviously.

What is shows is someone willing to present even the most absurd justification for absolving guilt in one situation, then doing the exact opposite in the other. If you are calling into question the intent of people trying to provide aid over 10,000 miles away, then you've pretty much given up your right to question people who want to attach any wild fantasy to Martin's actions or intentions. What you need is some consistency.

Actions do have many consequences, however, and some are not pleasant. Expecting too many people in a society to passively accept that certain members of their group can be gunned down in the process of heading home, while "law enforcement" and the "justice system" allows the killer to walk free, is pathetically unrealistic.

People aren't asking you to accept that some people can get gunned down. People are asking your to accept that there is a court of law and if someone is gunned down the courts will have to make a decision based on the evidence that is available to them. What is pathetically unrealistic is to make up one' s mind before the trial has even started. You don't know what evidence is going to come to light, but what you're doing is making your position so hardened that you'll be unable to make good decisions when the time comes.

Being followed does not mean your life is actually in danger.

In Martin's case it obviously did and it was, since he ended up dead.

@;whiskeysour

I believe that Zimmerman is a sick individual. Did anyone in Orange County call 911 more often than he?

What this case boils down to is quite simple: Who made the first wrong action -- the one action, if not made, would have completely prevented the tragedy of a young, innocent man losing his life.

And that wrong action was George Zimmerman leaving his vehicle for the sole purpose to pursue Trayvon Martin. Martin had done absolutely nothing wrong -- although it appears that he could do nothing right to the sick Zimmerman. Zimmerman knew that it was wrong for a Neighborhood Watch to pursue a suspect. He knew that it was wrong for a Watch to carry a weapon. It was that first wrong action by Zimmerman that justified Trayvon Martin to defend himself.

The mother claims the cries for help came from her son. Another witness claims Zimmerman was the one calling for help while being beaten by Martin. There is an audio recording and forensic acoustics will be able to prove whether the cries were Zimmerman's. Lesson for young males in states with conceal carry laws: remember you live in a state with conceal carry before you assault someone. That someone you assault could be armed and is allowed to shoot in self defense.

Lesson for young males in states with conceal carry laws: remember you live in a state with conceal carry before you assault someone. That someone you assault could be armed and is allowed to shoot in self defense.

Exactly. That is how the Fla. state law is written:

Florida Statute:

782.03 Excusable homicide.--Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

RR

My guess is this "stand yr ground" idea is meant for when someones home/property is invaded & one fears for their life or their family members lives that they THEN can use lethal force, but if the bad guy runs away YOU AINT free to hunt'em down & shoot them.

In many cases that is exactly what stand-your-ground means. But, some states have extended the "ground" to outside of one's home/property and apply it to any location. I am not sure but I think Florida is one of those states.

"It's quit simple for forensics to prove or disprove. Martin's hands would have been a mess if he was throwing the beating Zimmerman alleges he received. I presume most of us blokes have brawled at sometimes and I always remember hands being in abject bloody misery days after."

You are quite correct, there will be some sort of damage on Martin's hands. But that brings up the question (perhaps I watch too much American crime drama on TV) If there is damage on Martin's hands, is it "offensive" or "defensive" damage? The state will of course argue "defensive" and the defense will argue "offensive". And if there is no damage to Martin's hands them Zimmerman is a liar and should get the second degree conviction.

"This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge”; "irresponsible"; a prosecutor "making a campaign speech".

My comment yesterday on the previous page . . . If this were not an election year would any one outside of central Florida have even noticed this?

My guess is this "stand yr ground" idea is meant for when someones home/property is invaded & one fears for their life or their family members lives that they THEN can use lethal force....

GW, you're referring to the Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law), a tradition of Anglo-Saxon justice. The "stand your ground" concept expands the right to lethal self-defense to any location. Supporters note the right to self-defense regardless of location; those opposed note the difficulty in determining whether an individual was actually threatened. (In the case of the Castle Doctrine, the simple act of entering private property uninvited is general proof of threat.)

Martin's hands would have been a mess if he was throwing the beating Zimmerman alleges he received.

Madverts, the mortician who prepared Martin's body had this to say:

We could see no physical signs like there had been a scuffle, there had been a fight. The hands - I didn't see any knuckles, bruises or what have you. And that is something we would have covered up if it would have been there. The story does not make sense, that he was in this type of scuffle, of fight.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122575/Trayvon-Martin-case-Funeral-director-says-victims-body-didnt-look-like-hed-fighting.html

Of course, this was not said under oath, and the man may have had reason to cover things up - but that is unlikely. This will probably figure prominently.

Laguna,

"The choice of 2nd degree murder is interesting; most had expected manslaughter."

I'm not sure how the law works your way. If the judge decides that the Stand your Ground rule applies and therefore exonerates Zimmerman in the shooting, won't the case be thrown out rather than been dropped to a lesser charge of manslaughter?

I'm not sure how the law works your way. If the judge decides that the Stand your Ground rule applies and therefore exonerates Zimmerman in the shooting, won't the case be thrown out rather than been dropped to a lesser charge of manslaughter?

Madverts,

From my understanding that is pretty much exactly how the law works. Also understand that this is the official affidavit that was filed to charge him with 2nd degree murder. It is the only evidence they have to try and make the charge stand they can't change it or modify it from this point. So there isn't going to be any evidence bombshells that are hidden that will bolster the case at trial, such as Mr. Martin's autopsy shows he had no bruising on his knuckles to bolster their position. This is it this is all they have. They need to get to first base with the strongest evidence that they can present to a judge so he or she can say this is legitimate and move it toward trial.

This is it. It is no wonder on some legal pro's are saying this is going to get tossed out of court and he won't be charged with 2nd degree murder.

I think Ms. Corey knows she doesn't have case and went with the highest charge that she could try and stretch it to for cover when the Judge tosses it out. She can claim she tried but the Judge over-ruled her. She can then re-file another affidavit on manslaughter, though I doubt even that may not hold up if this is all they have.

I also think she went with this charge with the hope that Zimmerman, and folks may not like this as it actually might paint him as a more of a human being than a horrible monster, but if it is true according to some friends that he spoke to afterwards, he was pretty broken up over his killing another human being. His conscience may have bother him so much that he maybe could be talked into a plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser charge such as manslaughter saving everybody including herself the fiasco and media circus that it will become. I think she's banking or hoping on Zimmerman wanting this to be over in his life just as bad as everyone else and this was more like applying the most pressure she legally could on him to get try and get him there without a trial and get this resolved to almost everybody's satisfaction, She's gambling in my opinion.

Everyone else has eaten crow only to spit it back out again at the next days news report.

Yes, spit back out along with the cries of "cold," "lynch mobs," and "this is all they have."

Whoops there's a paragraph of yours in there Sail, apologies for any confusion.

Madverts,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he already been charged with 2nd degree murder?

No just served with a criminal complaint and arrested at this point. We haven't even got to the point of the preliminary hearing. This is the only evidence they are presenting to a Judge at the preliminary hearing so that he or she can determine if it is enough evidence to require a trial. The evidence your seeing is it. There is nothing else there for the prosecution to hang its hat on to convince a Judge this was a crime. This is either the worse affidavit ever written or the evidence that they do have actually supports Zimmerman's story and they sure aren't going to include that in it to a Judge.

From wiki below:

A preliminary hearing (evidentiary hearing) is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. In the United States, the judge must find there is probable cause that a crime was committed.

Hmmm.

In the UK the police charge you when they arrest you.

There is clearly enough evidence from my armchair point of view for at least manslaughter charge and conviction.

TorafusuTorasan - As tkoind2 helpfully points out, Martin was talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend at the time of the assault. That's why there is a recording of their voices during the assault.

There is no recording of Martin's phone call with his gril friend, only a record that that call was made and when it ended. The GF described the conversation to the SA's office. Zimmerman's lawyer will be able to take a deposition from the GF and will be able to cross examine her if this case goes to a courtroom.

tkoind2 - The problem in Florida is that this is a boneheaded law that should be removed from the books.

Removing a law from the "books" won't change the Martin/Zimmerman case. The court will consider the laws that were on the "books" at the time of the incident. Self defense standards and stand your ground laws will still apply as written as they are understood by Florida lawyers and judges (ie not the internet).

Laguna,

"His Website plea for funding also did not indicate the slightest bit of remorse."

Some close friends of his said he did though, so that is going to be enough for some crazies that think this man should walk free.

And I still claim that the word is not "punks" but actually the epithet.

You do actually understand that this a sworn affidavit I would hope. Or is the Lead Investigator that swore to it also actually in on the "cover-up" and is also a closet racist?

Martin had several minutes headstart IF he was heading home.

The sworn affadivit indicates otherwise, as well as what the evidence will show. Readers understand that it won't stop you from making false and misleading claims -- as Zimmerman has -- in the attempt to cover up a serious crime. I happen to believe that the crime of taking an innocent human life is far more serious that what Zimmerman thought he was trying to protect that night.

Zimmerman's injuries may not be sufficent for you

Were they sufficient to support a story of a head being pounded repeatedly against concrete pavement? I would claim that what is rather obvious even to a lay observer would be completely ignored and side-stepped by those who think it was perfectly acceptable that an innocent kid lost his life that night after being profiled and pursued.

Kinda ironic how the right has misappropriated that word. In the good ol' days, lynch mobs lynched.

Rank dishonesty, after all, is their world.

If we do not live down there in Florida, USA, and do not understand how bad, how dangerous some parts of that state are, we can not truly understand this STAND YOUR GROUND law, but the fact is that some parts of Florida are very, very dangerous so the tax payers there said, enough is enough so if criminals want to look for trouble down there in Florida, they best be ready to get shot dead, in this case we have Zimmerman who is accused of killing a minor, Trevon Martin in cold blood, but plenty of minors there in Florida kill plenty of adults in cold blood every day, car jackings, home invasions drive by shootings etc..so places like Florida, give their gun owners and home owners, car owners lots of room to protect themselves, like not the poor folk out in California, where even if you have a drug crazed maniac in your house, it is illegal to shoot them dead, but looks like Florida is a whole different ball game.

the fact is that some parts of Florida are very, very dangerous

So dangerous that a teenage lad cannot walk to the shop for sweets and a drink and walk back home without getting shot. If Florida had had California's gun laws isn't it likely that Zimmerman would not have been carrying a gun and Martin would still be alive?

The choice of punks (or the epithet) clearly demonstrated Zimmerman profiling and prejudging Martin into a category he most certainly did not belong.

Ya think??????? I mean it isn't as if he had not already called 911 reporting a suspicious guy in the neighborhood. I guess he was just looking for some official accomplices to verify his profiling and prejudging.

Which is why you felt the need to deflect away from that very basic point of logic.)

Logic dictates that calling 911 in the first place on Martin speaks for itself on his state of mind in regards to what he thought about Martin and what he thought he was up to at that time.

Madverts,

Did Zimmerman find a conscience before he went on patrol with a loaded gun, or just after he set up a website incredulously asking for donations?

I honestly can't answer that. Only he can know what he conscience was that night. I'm not sure of the relevance of his setting a website to ask for donations is other than it shows that he needs money to help pay for his legal defense.

The choice of punks (or the epithet) clearly demonstrated Zimmerman profiling and prejudging Martin into a category he most certainly did not belong.

Another "liberal" who wants jail sentences for Thought Crimes.

Thought crimes?

He has been charged with second degree murder.

I do you hope you understand that Zimmerman as the neighborhood watch included looking out for all his neighbors regardless of what skin tone. That Martin's father lived in that very neighborhood. That Zimmerman not knowing that Trayvon Martin was not a stranger in his neighborhood when he "racially profiled him" was for all practical purposes also looking out for Martin's fathers house in what he viewed as preventing a possible crime from happening.

And here was the "deal" foisted on Mr. Martin and his fellow neighbors by George Zimmerman:

In order to prevent the crime of someone breaking in to your home and taking your flatscreen or music system, I am going to violate the rules for Watches by arming myself and pursuing anyone who I think looks suspicious -- including your kids, especially if they are of the "naturally up-to-no-good" type -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink -- who always seem to "get away.". And if the person I catch up with happens to give me any trouble in any way, I may just have to defend myself by taking my gun out and shooting them. I'm 28 and should be able to handle anyone 15 and under without resorting to shooting them, but once they reach high school age all bets are off.

I also ask that you overlook my occasional bouts of violent anger. I've taken anger management and really do some nice things for people if and when I don't snap.

Don't worry if I do snap, however. I will make sure that my story will include receiving a beating from any suspicious person that really makes it appear I was afraid for my life. All I ask is that you suspend disbelief when there are no signs of any injury that come close to registering the terrible beating I will claim to have received from your child. No need to worry about me; Florida law will protect my right to shoot anyone I deem necessary if the situation is right, it's dark enough, and there are no reliable witnesses.

So sleep well, neighbors. Your TVs, stereos, and personal belongings are safe with George on duty. Again, don't worry about my breaking the rules about carrying weapons and pursuing suspects. Everyone knows that rules are for criminals.

Dang Yabits, he's now the dictator of his neighborhood?????

I suppose there is a much better name for the type of person who feels that the rather simple rules of being a Neighborhood Watch didn't apply to him, even when reminded of those rules as he's violating them -- but I doubt if you could come with it.

We will probably never know what happened between them...

The main reason for that rests with George Zimmerman's ability to convey the complete truth about his actions that night. It is clear that he did not sustain any serious head injuries, which makes his claims as to his head being repeatedly pounded against concrete dubious to say the least. With George's version, it's all downhill from there as far as anyone interested in the truth is concerned.

I want to hear what Zimmerman has to say under oath when confronted with the 40 or so seconds of Trayvon Martin screaming for his life -- validated by the results of biometric voice printing, combined with the other physical evidence relating to the position of the two people when the shot was fired. My bets are on his claiming that he just "blanked out" and doesn't remember a thing until he no longer heard the screams and saw the lifeless body of Martin beneath him.

I do feel sorry for this young kid, Trevon and not too sure what to think of this Zimmerman guy, maybe he has rocks for brains?? I do not live down there in Florida, but do have friends and family that do, and the sad reality is that if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time very easy to get into a bad situation like this. Maybe, just maybe out of this horrible incident something good may come out of this after all?? Make it illegal even down there in gun loving Florida for armed folk to kill innocent people of any color just for taking a walk in the wrong neighborhood?? Or right neighborhood? Such a sad, sad situation down there in Florida and I bet the communist in Havana are having a blast with this news, hey look at all the stupid racist red necks up in Florida, see how they all hate black folk, this is why Fidel Castro loves you, no matter what color you maybe, Cuba is superior to all of the evil, corrupt Yanqui Imperliasts! By the way, I wish I were kidding, but if I know my Cuban communists, they will use anything to make Cuba look better for Cubans, oh why am I talking about Cubans?? Florida has many, many of them and luckily this mess did not include any or we could have many more problems.

Madverts - He's free to say what he likes, there are no witnesses and the boy can hardly discredit the killers version, can he?

You're saying that there are no witnesses but that Zimmerman must be guilty? Unfortunately for the lynch mobs demanding a conviction, the SA's office actually does have to PROVE their case in court.

You do consider Zimmerman a "witness"? Whether you approve of him or not, Zimmerman was there and you were not.

yabits - I believe Zimmerman knows the critical details of what happened....,

Great.

yabits - The main reason for that rests with George Zimmerman's ability to convey the complete truth about his actions that night. It is clear that he did not sustain any serious head injuries, which makes his claims as to his head being repeatedly pounded against concrete dubious to say the least. With George's version, it's all downhill from there as far as anyone interested in the truth is concerned.

I want to hear what Zimmerman has to say under oath when confronted with the 40 or so seconds of Trayvon Martin screaming for his life -- validated by the results of biometric voice printing, combined with the other physical evidence relating to the position of the two people when the shot was fired.

Hahahaha. Zimmerman did sustain head injuries. You don't think they were serious enough. The SA's can't use the "yabits" defense in court because it's not based on Florida law.

Your expert has already discredited his own opinion. Owen published a paper that says the court requires that a person repeat the exact same words several times and those recordings should then be compared to the recording in question. In this case, one of the 9-1-1 calls. Your "validated biometric voice printing" where Owen pieced together parts of another recording to create something he could use, isn't allowed in a courtroom.

yabits - And here was the "deal" foisted on Mr. Martin and his fellow neighbors by George Zimmerman:

That was lovely, a fabrication on your part, but lovely just the same. Do you have ANY evidence that could help the SA's office convict Zimmerman? Anything at all that would be accepted by the court?

Herve,

"Another inconvenient truth is that neither party were saints."

That applies for neither party, you're just adding fuel as usual.

Hervé,

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "neither party were saints" then?

But note that you came with "dictator" after a plausible portrayal of the details of Zimmerman's "service" to his community.

Yabits, I'm just sure this was the "plausible" portrayal he gave his neighbors to put their confidence in him to vote him in as the neighborhood watch. It just goes over so well in a mixed race neighborhood.

In order to prevent the crime of someone breaking in to your home and taking your flatscreen or music system, I am going to violate the rules for Watches by arming myself and pursuing anyone who I think looks suspicious -- including your kids, especially if they are of the "naturally up-to-no-good" type -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink -- who always seem to "get away.".

It's because they have not spun the horrible and justifiable outrage of the great injustice of the events following the shooting of Trayvon Martin that has some people reacting as you do.

I call what NBC did total out fraud and blatant misrepresentation and way beyond "spin" tell they got caught after Editgate.

Yabits, I'm just sure this was the "plausible" portrayal he gave his neighbors to put their confidence in him to vote him in as the neighborhood watch. It just goes over so well in a mixed race neighborhood.

It was exactly the deal they received -- and some of his neighbors defended him for it nonetheless.

I call what NBC did total out fraud and blatant misrepresentation and way beyond "spin"...

This is the conservative penchant for lying to themselves at work here. Those of us who believed that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon Martin from the beginning did not need NBC's deceptive edit to support our viewpoint. But we knew that conservatives would jump all over it and try to make far more out of it than is actually there. Thou dost protest far too much.

It appears that conservatives can screw up royally -- starting with insane SYG laws and arming people who have no business carrying weapons, and letting them walk free after killing unarmed people doing nothing wrong -- but then expect anyone reporting on the consequences of their screw-ups to hold to the standards of a saint. That's pretty rich.

How long do you expect to get away with it?

Ben,

"I am amazed this debate is still going on. A 17 year old, who was doing absolutely nothing illegal at all, was followed by a man with a gun, who was not a police officer and was shot and killed"

It seems to be continuing because there are still some boneheads out there that are defending the killer despite what you just wrote, and using an ambiguous law of self defense as a get out clause, despite the shooter instigating the whole situation.

Two things are clear. The racial profiling and general racial issue in the US is simmering to the point of boiling over, and the ridiculous Stand Your Ground law, and the even more ridiculous obsession with the right to carry a concealed firearm nonesense are up for review.

Yabits: A society that prepares that kind of "table" for victimizing innocent people should expect an outburst unless it takes steps to correct the situation. Those actions should have serious consequences, as they already have had for Trayvon Martin and his family and friends. To their great credit, the vast majority of people involved have worked tirelessly towards a peaceful resolution to this matter.

This coming from a man who dismissed aid workers being murdered by the Taliban on account of "aid workers have given information to the government in the past." If anyone can spin victims into guilty parties, I'd nominate you.

"If anyone can spin victims into guilty parties, I'd nominate you."

There's been enough of that on both sides.

Maybe people could help themselves on both sides. On side could hang up their guns and the other side could start to dress differently to your average mugger/crack fiend :)

Zimmerman is guilty of creating a situation entirely on his own, in which an unarmed 17 year old is dead.

You should fire off a donation for the killer. He needs it.

You object to the laws that the majority of voters in Florida demanded.

On the contrary, the stand your ground laws are a sure way to send civil society on a path to hell. (The United States existed and grew for over 200 years without them.) Those who support or "demand" such laws can't to get to the hell they long for fast enough.

nec123a - To suggest (or imply), as someone has above, that the majority-vote of the Florida electorate is somehow a test of a Law's worth, is as laughable as it is absurd.

That's the way it works in a Democratic Republic.

yabits - On the contrary, the stand your ground laws are a sure way to send civil society on a path to hell. (The United States existed and grew for over 200 years without them.)

Wrong. In many of the territories of the area now known as the U.S.A., SYG was the law. You were expected to defend yourself, your family, and your property. The nearest law officer might be several days horseback ride away. If you weren't willing to defend youself you could lose everything, including your life.

That's right, a black kid walking home from the store is obviously up to no good.

Zimmerman would be calling 911 every other minute if that was the case. It's obvious that it was Martin behavior that caught his suspicion and not his ethnic background. He said in his 911 call that the guy was looking at houses on his way home, crime no, suspicious to the nieghborhood watch after your neighborhood had a rash of burglaries? Enough so that he called 911.

I think a dead kid lying on the ground and total lie fabricated by the shooter trumps what NBC did.

I think if we end up having race riots like in L.A after the Rodney King verdict that this will more than trump this with the help of what NBC did.

Unless, of course, Martin actually did approach Zimmerman and started punching Zimmerman and banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete sidewalk.

That raises the question of whether Martin would have approached Zimmerman at all if Zimmerman hadn't been following him, and if Zimmerman would have been following him if he hadn't had a weapon to give him extra courage.

What is shows is someone willing to present even the most absurd justification for absolving guilt in one situation, then doing the exact opposite in the other.

"Absolving guilt" is not what was or is being done in either situation. The justification in the former is anything but absurd. (As The Atlantic reported in 2012 how certain "agencies" used -- "took advantage of" -- the 2005 earthquake in the region to send in dozens of operatives posing as "aid workers" -- and a recent (2011) angry letter by NGOs to a certain government agency head demanding that they stop using their groups as fronts for espionage.)

Those kinds of actions have consequences, and war zones have their own set of rules. Some may wish to spend an entire lifetime willfully and woefully ignorant of such things. Some are off to one heck of a great start.

then you've pretty much given up your right to question people who want to attach any wild fantasy to Martin's actions or intentions. What you need is some consistency.

Nothing like a gross absurdity to provide a great laugh. Thanks.

People are asking your to accept that there is a court of law and if someone is gunned down the courts will have to make a decision based on the evidence that is available to them.

Well, a lot of people have ample evidence of already is that this would never had gotten to a court of law had not extraordinary public attention and pressure been exerted on the powers that be. That simple fact speaks volumes. I am consistent in my belief that people are justified in thinking that the justice system in this case is a sham. How much of a sham remains to be seen.

What is pathetically unrealistic is to make up one' s mind before the trial has even started.

No, it is pathetically unrealistic to expect people to ignore how the justice system in the state of Florida allowed the killer of Trayvon Martin to go scot free until pressure was applied, as well as to ignore the insane, barbaric laws that will be used to attempt to justify and absolve the killer. That is the pre-trial reality thrust upon those who believe that Trayvon Martin's murder is a grossly unjust act that will demand correction -- one way or another.

if things happened differently there would have been a different outcome

Already duh'ed that.

If the SA's office can prove that Zimmerman is lying OR that Zimmerman's version of events could not have happened, then Zimmerman will probably be found guilty of 2nd degree murder and will be looking at a minimum of 25 years in prison. If Zimmerman's story is true or if the SA can not convince a jury that Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder (not manslaughter because Zimmerman hasn't been charged with manslaughter) then Zimmerman walks

I have no problem with that. Both Zimmerman and Martin deserve their day in court.

The lynch mob has been blah deblah deblah blah...

Sorry, why are you telling me this? How is it relevant to what happened on the night in question?

PLEASE CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFORE ASSUMING

George Zimmerman was fighting a police officer awhile back.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer

He peppered his calls with jargon familiar to police. In one case, he chased a reckless driver while calling 911 -- the driver later told police he was terrified that Zimmerman was going to attack him. In another case, Zimmerman tailed a supermarket shoplifter until a police officer successfully arrested the thief.

On the night of Feb. 26, he tailed Trayvon Martin through the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the gated community where Zimmerman lived with his wife, describing his every move to a dispatcher who told him he didn't need to follow the young man. A scuffle ensued and Zimmerman shot Trayvon dead. Zimmerman claims self-defense.

Dr. Laurence Miller, a Palm Beach County clinical psychologist who works with local police agencies, said he believes Zimmerman likely was acting out the "whole TV cop role in his head" when he confronted Trayvon.

"A lot of people like the power and control that law enforcement officers have but with that comes a tremendous amount of responsibility," Miller said, pointing out that a police officer is the only profession that can use "coercive physical force" or lethal force to subdue a suspected criminal.

"People act like cowboys and like the power, but not the responsibility."

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/03/25/zimmerman-caring-person-who-had-run-ins-law

From a neutral point of view, stand your ground laws, shoot first laws, blanket immunity are nothing short of unbelievable and beyond my comprehension. I think if you had not had these, both of them would not get in trouble now. It seems it just puts so many people in danger. It must be a chaotic, tense world.

What a state to have statutes like this on the books. and what a guy who spends his "leisure time" being a security guard.

how many times the same article is going to change??

Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

This action is not illegal in Florida. IF Martin were actually trying to return to his home, and not waiting to attack Zimmerman, why hadn't he reached his home or gotten farther away from Zimmerman with the time he had available? This is a question that will be raised by the defense. It could create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a jury if not in the minds of the lynch mobs.

Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued," prosecutors said in their account.

This is what the prosecutor will have to prove, in court, that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Prove as in "provide evidence" not supposition.

Zimmerman told authorities that Martin attacked him as he going back to his vehicle, punched him in the face, knocked him down and began slamming head against the sidewalk.

Does the prosecutor have any evidence that this is not what happened?

At a pretrial hearing, Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence - a relatively low legal standard - that he acted in self-defense in order to get a judge to toss out the second-murder charges. And if that fails and the case does go to trial, the defense can raise the argument all over again.

Zimmerman's lawyer can use SYG as his defense at the pre-trial and use self-defense or SYG during the actual trial. If there is a trial.

There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said. Karin Moore, an assistant professor of law at Florida A&M University, said the law "puts a tremendous burden on the state to prove that it wasn't self-defense."

The State has to prove that it wasn't self-defense.

I bet Zimmerman will be exonerated at the end of the trial.

As tkoind2 helpfully points out, Martin was talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend at the time of the assault. That's why there is a recording of their voices during the assault. Cell phones are not considered dangerous weapons under any state law.

RomeoR's pipe dream of "excusable homicide" is going to get a rude awakening when Zimmerman gets sentenced to decades in prison for his actions, just like another second amendment activist with a fake self defense story, Jesus Gonzalez from Wisconsin.

rmistric, thank you for your interpretation of what the law says. I read it differently.

Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, (upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat) without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

In other words homicide is excusable if it wasn't intentional, you don't use a dangerous weapon and you don't do it in a cruel or unusual manner, and the other person starts it. So if someone suddenly starts yelling in your face, maybe pushing you about, and when you push them back they crack their head against a brick wall and die, that's justifiable homicide; but if someone gets in your face, you push them onto the ground and then shoot them, that's not justifiable.

But then in my version of common sense people don't walk around their neighbourhood packing a lethal weapon and looking for 'suspicious' teenagers.

Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, (upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat) without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

I think those parenthesis make a big difference as to how the law is read. Are they in the original text or did you just add them? From the following link it appears that you just added them.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/782.03

"As tkoind2 helpfully points out, Martin was talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend at the time of the assault. That's why there is a recording of their voices during the assault" How is there a recording of a private call? Why is there a recording of a private call? If that recording was NOT made by an official government office or the cell phone provider (which would have been illegal) it is just hearsay evidence.

As for Martin attacking Zimmerman, every one appears to only look at Martins age (yes too Young to die) but forget that he was at least as large as Zimmerman (6 foot 3 inches, 190 cm), if some one my size or larger attacked me I too would be very afraid for my life.

However if Zimmerman did indeed continue to follow Martin after being told not to by the police than he is the cause of the tragedy and should be punished. But then the community is at fault as well for not providing enough police protection, the U.S. has taken the attitude that it is more important to provide people on social assistance with wide screen TVs and cable TV service than to provide adequate police and fire services. If the gated community has been the target of buglers why wasn't there more police patrols there?

Too many questions at this point and not enough answers.

"This case is looking like the later WITHOUT any provocation what so ever!"

The prosecution sound pretty sure of the charges they have brought. I wonder if he was shot in the back.

If this guy walks will it be Rodney King style riots again?

Note that the official charges list the word that Zimmerman spoke that night as "punks," and not "cold" the way some have asserted.

Note you asserted he said something entirely different and beat that drum as loudly as you could, you were so sure of it ,that it you actually said it "seals the deal."

Mar 24th your quote:

If it is within the bounds of reason to presume that unfamiliar African-Americans made Zimmerman feel defensive or confrontational, and whites did not, that racial profiling is in effect. What seals the deal is the racial epithet he uttered in his pursuit of Martin, after being told by the 911 operator not to pursue?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/mass-florida-rally-after-black-teen-shot-dead#comment_1273753

Shanique Smith - In what way did zimmerman feel threatened? zimmerman accosted the boy with the intent of using force thogh there was no force initially used by the boy. Only zimmerman's words for it. How can someone be walking/running away from you and you feel threatened? Why did you feel threatened and pursued the threat?

How far away was the boy from where his dad was when he was killed?

Did it appear he was trying to get there and was stopped halfway/three quarterway by zimmerman?

If the boy turned back to attack him he should be further than nearer to where his dad was.

Martin's father had gone out to a resturant. He had left Martin, who was on a 10 day suspension for a drug issue at school, unsupervised. The shooting occured some 70 yards from where Martin was staying. There was approxmately 3 or so minutes between the time Martin first began running disappearing from Zimmerman's view and the time of the shooting (pieced together from various 9-1-1 calls).

The prosecution intends to prove that Zimmerman followed Martin to the scene of the shooting. The defense will try to prove that Martin was following Zimmerman back to Zimmerman's car.

Someone threw the first punch. Injuries were sustained. Someone was crying out for help. Was there a struggle for the weapon? What did the eyewitnesses actually see and hear? Which technical experts will be allowed to testify in court? What will they testify to?

Laguna,

Regarding how fine a human Zimmerman is and how now so distraught, has he contacted Martin's family at least to convey his sympathy? Not that I know of, though he did apparently contact Sean Hannity. His Website plea for funding also did not indicate the slightest bit of remorse.

Never claimed he was a fine human being just stating facts that were already out there of what he confided to friends and family.

A man identified as a friend of George Zimmerman, the Florida neighborhood watch captain who fatally shot unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, says the man would tell Martin's parents he's "very, very sorry" if he could.

"He couldn't stop crying. He's a caring human being," Oliver, 53, a former television news reporter and anchor in Orlando who has known Zimmerman for several years, told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"I mean, he took a man's life and he has no idea what to do about it. He's extremely remorseful about it," Oliver said, relating stories told to him by Zimmerman's mother-in-law, a close friend of Oliver's wife.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57404378-504083/friend-of-trayon-martin-shooter-george-zimmerman-says-he-is-extremely-remorseful/

Also it was reported by his lawyers that have since drop out of the case that he was pretty emotionally distraught at a press conference. And this is not in any context of a defense for him but after you've been pretty much villified as the most evil racist man in America, I'd say he'd be ripe to take a plea bargain just to end this whole tragic situation for all involved.

And you keep trying to deflect the main point away from what either of the two words -- "punk" or the epithet -- reveals about the state of Zimmerman's mind towards his target that night. You did that earlier when insisting -- despite all of the physical evidence and the context of his call -- that what Zimmerman was cursing was the weather.

I did nothing of the sort. I tried to verify if his saying cold was plausible after CNN reported that he didn't use a racial slur after all and that the word he used was cold instead (see below quote). CNN reported it first as the racial epithet (shoddy reporting as is almost all of the coverage has been) that even now you still insist he said even when all the evidence is saying B.S and now the official evidence the prosecution is going use has said he did not also. You never even tried to see if his saying it as a racial epithet was plausible when it was first reported, you decided he was a racist the moment you heard his name found an unintelligible mumble under his breath that your dog whistle ears confirmed was a racial slur and have repeated it like a mindless drone ever since.

sailwindApr. 08, 2012 - 02:21PM JST

I just don't see this particular incident as an indictment of all media.

CNN also now has had to backtrack on its pathetic biased shoddy reporting.

It Was 'Cold,' Not 'Coon': CNN Backtracks On Its Claim That Zimmerman Used Racial Slur In 911 Call

The video shows Tuchman listening to the enhanced 911 call, as CNN audio design specialist plays the single word over and over, and then exclaims: "That sounds even more like the word ("coon" or "coons") than using it with the F-word before that."

http://www.japantoday.com/member/view/sailwind

Are you suggesting that if things were different, then things would be different?

Duh.

Zimmerman is saying that Martin approached him from behind, he and Martin exchanged words, Martin punched him, knocked him down, and continued attacking him. That is illegal even in California.

And it would likely have ended with bruises and black eyes all round, maybe a few cuts. Maybe even a few broken bones, who knows. As it is one boy is dead and his killer faces a long time in prison. Even if he avoids incarceration, he will always be that guy who shot an unarmed teenager.

All I know is one does not instigate a confrontation the way Zimmerman did. He did one thing right which was to call the police and give a description if he was concerned that A CRIME WAS GOING TO BE COMMITED although Martin was not walking up to houses or peeking through windows, but instead just walking down the street ( a clear cut case of racial profiling). If Martin had been ACTING suspicious compared to just LOOKING suspicious because of how he was dressed on a supposedly rainy evening.

Has the film "Minority Report" not taught a lesson in assumption that a person will commit a crime before they even initiate one a bad mentality?

All that is left is evidence, and that is what is going to show whether Zimmermans statement of what he says happened... happened. There does need to be a proper investigation of this situation and the fact they have to actually go find the evidence instead of just passing it off by one's word helps.

Madverts - He followed the boy, against the advice of police dispatch and was carrying a concealed weapon. Nobody asked him to do that. He forced the confrontation, there is no denying that. It is a documented fact.

Documented where? Martin was out of Zimmerman's sight for 2 to 3 minutes and it's obvious that Martin didn't run home. How did Martin only manage to run 30 or so yards in that amount of time?

Zimmerman says Martin approached him from behind. Zimmerman says Martin punched him. In a court room, it's customary to provide evidence that refutes these statements. What evidence do you have that something else occured? "Feelings" don't count. "Empathy" isn't admissable. "Fantasy" is interesting but lacks a certain substance when it comes to courtroom testimony.

cleo - Like photos of the blood-stained concrete that Zimmerman's head was being bashed into? Or lack of the same?

Or testimony from the paramedic that treated Zimmerman at the scene. Zimmerman sustained injuries from his fight with Martin. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman wasn't injured or that Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious enough to suit you? Florida law doesn't establish a minimum standard for injuries before someone can decide if their life is in danger.

This coming from a man who dismissed aid workers being murdered by the Taliban on account of "aid workers have given information to the government in the past." If anyone can spin victims into guilty parties, I'd nominate you.

There's a slight difference between "aid workers" going 10,000 miles out of their way to inject themselves into a war zone and a kid walking home from the store through his gated community. A difference lost on some people obviously.

Actions do have many consequences, however, and some are not pleasant. Expecting too many people in a society to passively accept that certain members of their group can be gunned down in the process of heading home, while "law enforcement" and the "justice system" allows the killer to walk free, is pathetically unrealistic. I might not be able to expect better of the Taliban, but I certainly feel I should be able to of Americans.

Everybody knows he targeted Martin, he called 911 on him and he didn't call them because he thought Martin needed a lift to go to Church.

That's right, a black kid walking home from the store is obviously up to no good.

You need NBC's deceptive edit to bolster your claim that Zimmerman's a racist

I think a dead kid lying on the ground and total lie fabricated by the shooter trumps what NBC did. That conservative politics and viewpoint places one stupid network producer over the life of a human being is only typical for them.

I expect next you'll start blaming Rush Limbaugh for causing Trayvon Martin's death.

Limbaugh is adding his straw to the camel's load. I don't expect the conservatives who worship at his feet to understand that.

plaidpajamas - In regards to the Florida law that you can use deadly force to defend your self, If Trayvon felt threatened by the man following him, wouldn't that also allow him to use force when he supposedly attacked Zimmerman? The bottom line is that the Zimmerman disregarded the polices orders,

Not exactly. Florida law says you can use deadly force to to SAVE YOUR LIFE or someone elses life. You have to believe that you are actually in danger of losing your life. Being followed does not mean your life is actually in danger. It may just be someone walking in the same direction as you, you may end up getting robbed, you may end up getting mugged, you may end up getting punched in the face but you are not in danger of losing your life.

The 9-1-1 operator wasn't a police officer. There was no "police order" to disregard. The 9-1-1 operator (not a police officer) had asked Zimmerman to keep him informed of Martin's actions. The 9-1-1 operator later told Zimmerman, " we don't need you to do that" (follow Martin). That wasn't an order (ie Do not follow him!) and it didn't come from a police officer.

The local police had talked to the neighborhood watch group on several occasion. The police "recommended" that the neighborhood watch volunteers do not carry weapons, including firearms. Recommended - not ordered.

Florida law says that a person can carry a firearm if they have met whatever standards the State has established. There is also a national Federal fireams background check. Anyone who has met these standards can legally carry a firearm in Florida. There are only some 2 million people in Florida who have applied for and recieved Florida concealed carry permits. Zimmerman is one of those 2 million. The local police can not tell Zimmerman not to carry a firearm but they can ask a judge to issue an order to prevent Zimmerman from carrying a firearm. There was no court order to prevent Zimmerman from carrying a firearm. Zimmerman violated no Florida laws by carrying a firearm.

George Zimmerman - was attending school to become a police officer also he had a criminal past.

DID YOU KNOW -

The three incidents took place in Orange County, Fla. In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar. In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted. In December 2006, Zimmerman was charged with speeding. The case was dismissed when the officer failed to show up in court.

HonestDictator - Zimmerman's actions escalated the situation and helped instigate this entire situation. It doesn't matter what Trayvon Martin may have done in the past, what mattered is what he was doing in the now which was walking home from a store which should have been without incident.

Unless it was Martin who escalated the situation by approaching Zimmerman, punching Zimmerman in the face, slaming Zimmerman's head on the ground, and continuing to attack Zimmerman while Zimmerman lay on his back on the ground.

All the prosecutor has to do is "prove", in a courtroom, that something else occured that evening.

Arrest paul, Zimmerman was in a vehicle, got out of the vehicle to accost Martin. Zimmerman escelated the incident. I don't care what you want to believe, but one does not go around confronting people one doesn't know, especially if they're not doing anything wrong. I've got enough common sense to know that. The old "don't bother people that aren't bothering you" applied here. Martin wasn't casing or walking up to peoples houses. Zimmer just thought he looked suspicious, not acting suspicious.

Last I checked, stalking was against the law.

It is going to come down to this: Both the man and the kid had the right to self-defense. (I call Trayvon a kid because he was not yet 18.) Whose right to self-defense superseded the other's in this situation?

Zimmerman was clearly in violation of his duties as a Neighborhood Watch -- as plainly stated by the Sanford police in a November 2011 meeting to the community watch volunteers, a meeting that Zimmerman arranged. The moment he carried a weapon and started to pursue Martin, he was in the wrong. It can't be verified if Martin did anything legally wrong in the act of defending himself against an armed stranger intent on pursuing and accosting him. Martin may have reasonably decided not to lead the armed stalker straight to his residence -- thereby putting his sibling at risk too -- which is why he may have paused to consider his options before Zimmerman caught up to him.

Will a jury accept that Trayvon's right to self-defense superseded Zimmerman's? Much depends on their accepting that Zimmerman was in the wrong for leaving his car with a loaded weapon with an intent to pursue someone he already demonstrated suspicion and hostility towards. I believe they will.

Only the presentation of ballistics and other physical evidence can determine if the crime rises to second degree murder, or whether some lesser charge applies. I suspect that if the Florida justice system "fails" the victim in this case, federal charges will be brought against Zimmerman. The man and his family are looking at years of legal hell ahead of them -- all because of sheer stupidity and, my opinion, cowardice in not being able to handle a situation without bringing a gun into it. (If you thought pursuing a suspect required a firearm, all the more reason to let the police handle it.)

RomeoR: "782.03 Excusable homicide.--Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner."

Ah, so then Martin was 100% defending himself and was in the right before being murdered. Thanks for clarifying.

What's the big difference with or without the parentheses? How will a defense attorney get past that glaring "without any dangerous weapon being used" (i.e. Cleo's brick wall) proviso of the law? Yes, I know--try to bring up Martin's checkered past etc. But then try to get past Zimmerman's previous conviction for assault...get this... on a police officer.

Madverts: "Split knuckles are not defensive wounds."

They are under Florida law, if one felt 'threatened' by the other and hit them because of it. Goes both ways. As it is, aside from speculation on a photo of Zimmerman getting out of the police car, and a bunch of hearsay, we know nothing of what any of the injuries were -- save a gunshot from a maniac chasing a black kid against police orders. It should be VERY easy to find out, and reveal to the public, where the shot entered Martin (and exited, if it did), and if he was on the ground when it happened or above Zimmerman, as the latter claims.

A lot of these details, which should be extremely evident and easy to analyze, should be made public if only to put the issue to rest among the people in general.

You mis-understood Smith, Frank was suggesting wounds on Martin's hands might be used by the defence, when if there are split knuckles then he was punching something at the very least.

I know leibersbud2012 has found an expert to agree with him from the MSM so it's all settled for him, (and made that super-dooper point that the sgunman is a democrat, sorry DEMOCRAT!!) - but I seriously doubt anyone in the prosecutors office thinks they can screw this one up in light of the international frenzy over the case. They took their time going over the evidence and the statutes presumably before bringing these serious charges. They must think it''s airtight or they'd have gone for a manslaughter charge.

I'm really starting to wonder if he was shot in the back.

yabits - And I still claim that the word is not "punks" but actually the epithet. But since Zimmerman's legal team themselves claimed that "punks" was the word, there is not much more here -- since either punks or the epithet reveals the state of Zimmerman's mind regarding hostility towards his target. The word "cold" would be interpreted by an apologist as a means of excusing Zimmerman.

It is Zimmerman's hostility towards his target -- his prejudice at removing from an American citizen the presumption of innocence -- that "seals the deal." Zimmerman knew he was doing wrong the minute he got out of his vehicle with a loaded weapon to pursue Trayvon. To Zimmerman, Martin was judged as an xxxhole and a "punk" who was threatening to "get away." (Actually he was just going home.)

To claim "self-defense" after killing an innocent person you've accosted is really quite amazing.

The second seal was placed on the deal when Zimmerman recounted the details of his fight -- replete with his head being pounded repeatedly against concrete until he nearly lost consciousness. That seal was placed when SFD checked him out and saw no signs of internal trauma whatsoever, and firmly planted as the shooter ambled completely casually and sure-footed through the police station with nary a scratch on him.

It doesn't matter what "you" claim as far as the court is concerned. It doesn't matter what the lynch mobs claim either. Martin had several minutes headstart IF he was heading home. It's obvious that Martin did not run home because he had more than enough time to arrive there. The court will try to determine if Zimmerman approached Martin or Martin apprached Zimmerman. The court will also try to determine who was crying out for help. Zimmerman's injuries may not be sufficent for you but Florida law doesn't set a minimum standard for injuries before lethal self defense force can be used.

gelendestrasse - I'm not sure that Zimmerman can dodge this one. He pursued when he was told not to. If anybody was "standing his ground" it was Trayvon Martin.

Was there a legal requirement for Zimmerman to follow the "advice" of the 9-1-1 operator? It's not like Zimmerman was ordered by a police officer to stay in his vehicle.

Madverts - "You do consider Zimmerman a "witness"?"

No he's a suspect in a murder trial. Really, I shouldn't be explaining such simple facts for you. Anything Zimmerman says is going to be self-serving.

Whether you approve of it or not, Zimmerman was a witness to the entire altercation. The prosecutions case is based on "proving" that Zimmerman's story is false.

It now appears that the SA's office has chosen to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Not manslaughter. The legal standard for manslaughter would be easier to prove. The preliminary affidavit was only to provide the court with enough supposition to hold Zimmerman for trial. Once the trial starts, the prosecutor doesn't get to change their mind. The prosecutor can still amend the charges to include manslaughter or any other charge but once the actual rrial begins, it's all or nothing.

The prosecutor can attempt to make a deal later and offer Zimmerman "manslaughter with time served or 9 years" etc but it's up to Zimmerman to accept the deal AND for the judge to accept the deal.

If the prosecutor can't PROVE to the jury that Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree "beyond a reasonable doubt", the prosecutor can't retry Zimmerman. That would fall under "double jeopardy".

cleo - In Martin's case it obviously did and it was, since he ended up dead.

Unless, of course, Martin actually did approach Zimmerman and started punching Zimmerman and banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete sidewalk.

Then Zimmerman would have committed "justifiable homicide" according to Florida law.

I realise that you don't have any proof that Zimmerman's story is false but I assume that the prosecutor believes they might have some evidence that will convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman wasn't in fact standing his ground or otherwise acting in self defense.

This case now revolves around what the prosecutor can prove happend or what the prosecutor can prove didn't happen.

cleo - That raises the question of whether Martin would have approached Zimmerman at all if Zimmerman hadn't been following him, and if Zimmerman would have been following him if he hadn't had a weapon to give him extra courage.

Of course, if things happened differently there would have been a different outcome. The SA's office doesn't have the luxury of just making up different scenerios to explain why Martin and Zimmerman may have met. The SA's office has to prove that Zimmerman violated Florida law. There is a witness to everything that happened that night. Zimmerman. If the SA's office can prove that Zimmerman is lying OR that Zimmerman's version of events could not have happened, then Zimmerman will probably be found guilty of 2nd degree murder and will be looking at a minimum of 25 years in prison. If Zimmerman's story is true or if the SA can not convince a jury that Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder (not manslaughter because Zimmerman hasn't been charged with manslaughter) then Zimmerman walks because Florida law says so.

The lynch mob has been making up many claims about Zimmerman, Florida law, and what they "think" must have happened that night. The lynch mobs have demanded Zimmerman's murder and kidnapping. The lynch mob media has altered video and audio statements to influence the public, the potential jury pool, law enforcement, and the SA's office. The lynch mob should be ashamed of themselves and they have no respect for the law.

Zimmerman's actions escalated the situation and helped instigate this entire situation. It doesn't matter what Trayvon Martin may have done in the past, what mattered is what he was doing in the now which was walking home from a store which should have been without incident.

Last I checked, stalking was against the law.

Madverts:

A picture of Zimmerman urinating on the body wouldn't convince you.

Why would you imagine the vigilante Zimmerman capable of such things? Why do you hate Hispanics so much ?

Your attempts to paint the victim as a violent, drug dealing homie from the LBC are all on file.

Oh yeah. Homie from the LBC. I think we now know Madverts interest in this tragedy - he wanted to throw around all the American rap hip hop gangsta slang he been hard at work masterin in his boudoir on da weekendz, wif his posse.

Laguna - This is a sad, sad point about America. Suppose someone were following you in Japan, and you didn't know why.

Suppose you had 2 -3 minutes headstart on the person following you. Would you go home, which was only some 70 to 100 yards away? Would you turn back to confront the person following you? How far could you run in 3 minutes?

Laguna - To "lynch" means to create a mob of vigilantes who will take law into their own hands, either because they cannot wait for the process or because they don't trust the outcome.

That the neo-right turns this phrase against Martin in this case is intolerable.......

The term lynch mob applies to those members of the media, the entertainers, the professional protestors, and internet bloggers who have repeatedly made false claims about who said what or who did what. The lynch mobs have attempted to take the law into their own hands. The lynch mobs have even CREATED evidence to support their pre-determined conclusion. The lynch mobs don't care what the laws says or what the evidence indicates. The lynch mobs had already found Zimmerman guilty weeks ago.

It will be interesting, and prudent, to see what a court of law decides.

yabits - And it's not just Florida; many other states are following suit with these insane "stand your ground" laws that allow ordinary citizens to mete out de facto executions on the streets with no due process.

Or you could just refrain from punching people and banging their head on the ground. Keep your hands to yourself and you won't get hurt.

You object to the laws that the majority of voters in Florida demanded. The majority of voters in Florida reject your opinion that they should not be allowed to protect themselves. I suppose you could run for public office in Florida but don't tell the voters what you have in mind for them or they won't elect you.

yabits - No. It's because they have not spun the horrible and justifiable outrage of the great injustice of the events following the shooting of Trayvon Martin that has some people reacting as you do.

I never realized that "sainthood" was required when heading home from the store and expecting to arrive safely.

Stopping to punch someone in the face doesn't sound like Martin was in a hurry to get home.

The lynch mobs have offered a reward for the killing or kidnapping of Zimmerman. The lynch mobs have given out the address of a 70 year old couple because their name was Zimmerman. The lynch mobs have objected to Martin's suspensions for drugs, vandalism, and jewlery posession. The lynch mobs claim that injuries are not injuries or not serious enough to warrant lethal force. The lynch mobs have falsely edited video and audio to support their position that Zimmerman is guilty of violating Florida law. The lynch mob has employed the usual race-baiting, professional protestors who repeat false claims and hyperbol to enhance their own reputations. The lynch mobs don't care what Florida laws say. The lynch mobs refuse to even consider the possibility that Zimmerman might have acted in self defense.

The prosecutors will present their case to the Florida court. The defense will present their case to the Florida court. The lynch mobs and their "opinions" will not even be allowed in the courtroom.

yabits - The sworn affadivit indicates otherwise, as well as what the evidence will show.

What "sworn affidavit" are you referring to? What "evidence" are you referring to? The court case hasn't even begun yet. Both sides will present evidence and witnesses. Both sides will cross examine the others witnesses and question the evidence.

Existing Florida law still applies. Self defense, stand your ground, legal proceedures, expert witnesses, eyewitnesses, physical evidence all have to be presented to the court. The prosecutor still has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd murder, not manslaughter because Zimmerman isn't charged with manslaughter.

Florida law still allows for several possibilities of justifiable homicide. Situations where lethal force is permitted - by State law.

"There’s a “high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case,” Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said. Karin Moore, an assistant professor of law at Florida A&M University, said the law “puts a tremendous burden on the state to prove that it wasn’t self-defense"

Alan Dershowitz (a Democrat, like the vigilante Zimmerman) is a prominent liberal and expert on criminal law. He has written that the state's case looks very thin.

"This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge”; "irresponsible"; a prosecutor "making a campaign speech".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47034974

Madverts - Zimmerman is guilty of creating a situation entirely on his own, in which an unarmed 17 year old is dead.

Is the trial over? I didn't even know it had started. Or do you agree with the various lynch mobs that a trial isn't really required at this point?

Has the prosecutor proved that the "unarmed" Martin didn't use his "arm" to punch Zimmerman?

Where is the forensics report? Where is the cctv footage from the 7-11 where the victim supposedly bought candy and tea? Does the g.f's phone record show she called the cops after Trayvon reported being followed by Zimmerman?

"Da funeral parlor man, he said Trayvon's hands they didnt have no swellin !" doesnt quite convince me. Pressed to comment on the case by a local reporter or a prominent member of the local community that makes up his clientele the guy is gonna side against the lynch mob? Yeah, right.

Likewise, when the teenaged g.f. can come forward two weeks after the event and people, not to mention some legal professionals, actually consider memory of a phone call to be proof valid enough for conviction we are entertaining acceptance of some fantastically improbable new precedents: "There is a witness to the crime your honor - a telephone witness !

I think Zimmerman is being 'overcharged' in the hopes that he will cop to manslaughter. I also wonder if , in his amateurish and cop-wannabe way, naively trusting of a police and judicial system he (studying law enforcement at night) apparently thought he was already a peripheral member of, didnt accidentally incriminate himself with conflicting reports to the police. His choice of lawyers (neither appears to have represented defendents facing the charges Zimmerman does) was odd to say the least and I read somewhere that after his arrest Zimmerman (who may have mild cognitive impairment) went alone with the cops back to the scene of the killing the next day (or a few days after, I forget which) to review what happened - - a huge mistake. He should never have gone without competent legal counsel.